C-melody mouthpiece

[mostly alto guy]

Pardon me if this has been covered elsewhere, but I couldn't find it.

What decent C-mel pieces are currently available at a reasonable (read, less then the horn itself) price?

I understand Bill Street is making one designed to use tenor reeds. Anyone have experience with this one?

All assistance greatly appreciated.

[Helen]

I don't know about Bill Street, but yes, there a number of resonably priced current production model c melody mouthpieces available for in and around the $100 mark.

Ruynon makes one, although they don't advertise it. You can contact the company directly and they will tell you about it. Comes in 3 openings and with or without spoiler. I use this one on my straight-neck Conn. Gives a nice authentic c melody sound, but has good projection.

Woodwind and Brasswind sells the Woodwind brand by LeBlanc.

Meyer makes one. I've only ever seen the listing in a on-line price list for a store in Holland I believe. I think I remember Bootman used to use one, he could tell more about it.

I know that Ralph Morgan recently started selling them, but they are more costly. Don't know how much more, but I know some people on this board use them.

Lastly, if you haven't already checked out the c melody forum, here's the link:


http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=cmelody

C melody players talking nothing but c melody issues. Lots of info. and threads about mouthpieces...Hope this helps as a starting point....helen

[mostly alto guy]

Helen, that site is just what I needed. Many thanks!

[Dave Dolson]

I have a Bill Street C-melody piece. It plays good. DAVE

[Gandalfe]

Awesome link Helen! Once again you provide angst-free advice and pointers. Thanks.

[stitch]

I too have a Bill Street mouthpiece that came with my Buescher c-mel; it seems to be faced for alto reeds rather than tenor though - anybody else come across one of these? I did pose this question on the c-mel site that Helen mentioned, but nobody knew anything; I even emailed the man himself via the Univ of Maine(? it was a while ago...) but got no response. The obvious answer I suppose is that if an alto reed fits then that's what I should use, but it would be interesting to know if anybody else has one.

[Roger Aldridge]

I tried a Bill Street c-melody mouthpiece a year or two ago. It struck me as being a better quality mouthpiece than many of the others that I tried at the time. However, I didn't find anything particularly exceptional in it's playing characteristics. On the other hand, when I first tried a Morgan c-melody mouthpiece it was WOW!!! :D The quality it's of sound, response, and projection have to be experienced in order to be believed. Yes, this mouthpiece is more expensive than others on the market. Never the less, in my experience it's worth every penney and then some. One reason why it has a higher cost than others is that it's hand-made and a great deal of attention goes into making each one.

[markieg]

My alto mpc fits on a straight-neck Conn, but I would rather use a bigger mpc and reed because I don't like the whiney alto tone as much. I don't know if I like the idea of difficulty finding reeds, etc. What does everyone think of alto or tenor mpc's on C-melodies? I was thinking if it had a slightly thicker cork a tenor mpc would fit just fine.

[Helen]

My alto mpc fits on a straight-neck Conn, but I would rather use a bigger mpc and reed because I don't like the whiney alto tone as much. I don't know if I like the idea of difficulty finding reeds, etc. What does everyone think of alto or tenor mpc's on C-melodies? I was thinking if it had a slightly thicker cork a tenor mpc would fit just fine.

The new c melody mouthpieces use tenor reeds, so no problems hunting for odd reeds.

As far as playing alto or tenor pieces on a c melody, it is done all the time. However it changes the sound of the horn to something other than a c melody sound. Intonation is also often compromised with either an alto or tenor piece. I have only found 2 m/ps (both tenor) that work with my straight neck Conn. A vintage Otto Link Tone Edge hard rubber piece circa. 50s or 60s. The other is a plastc Couf from an unknown period. Both play intune, but the horn loses its c melody sound.

[frankbiff]

Beechler also makes a C mel mpc.

[Roger Aldridge]

If you're thinking about using a Beechler c-melody mouthpiece I'd suggest that you carefully check it out against a tuner before shelling out the money for it. Personally, I find the Beechler piece to not have enough chamber volume to be a good c-melody mouthpiece. As a result, intonation can be problematic. It addition, it's faced for alto reeds....not tenor. This was confirmed when I sent a Beechler c-melody mouthpiece I had a couple of years ago to JVW for refacing. Even after JVW did his magic on this mouthpiece it didn't work out very well on my Conn c-mel. However, I gave the mouthpiece to Wade Walker and he absolutely raved about how well it plays on his Buescher c-melody. So, go figure! :lol:

[stitch]

So Beechler make c-mel m/ps faced for alto reeds? Maybe my Bill Street alto reed c-mel isn't so strange after all ...

[paulwl]

As far as playing alto or tenor pieces on a c melody, it is done all the time. However it changes the sound of the horn to something other than a c melody sound.
Assuming that the horn is dark by nature, and that brightness in a C melody is inauthentic. I wonder. Even with the alto-like bore, I wonder.

If you play a bari mpc on a bass sax, does its sound change to that of an "un-bass"?


[/quote]

[Roger Aldridge]

Paul,

This is an interesting point!

When I listen to Frankie Trumbauer recordings his c-melody tone doesn't sound all that dark to my ears. Rather, it's on the light side. However, with a vintage mouthpiece a c-melody sounds dark, tubby, and muffled. It isn't at all like Trumbauer's sound! So, what do we mean by a traditional c-melody sound -- the vintage sound or Trumbauer's?

It's important to understand that Trumbauer's c-melody sound is different from his sound on alto. This should not come as a surprise. While the design of the c-melody bore is closer to an alto than a tenor, it's NOT the same as an alto. Thus, the air flow in a c-melody has more resistance than an alto and it's sound has a somewhat muted quality. As much as I love the c-melody, it would be a struggle to play the lead alto part on one in a large jazz ensemble. It simply doesn't have an alto's brillance of tone and level of projection.

The Morgan c-melody mouthpiece has helped me to develop a clearer concept of a c-melody sound. Ralph spent quite a bit of time researching the c-melody and created a mouthpiece that has the proper length and amount of chamber volume for the instrument. Interestingly, it's very close in length to an alto mouthpiece; however, it has a considerably larger chamber than a similar tenor mouthpiece. This piece doesn't have a vintage mouthpiece sound. Rather, it has a tone that sounds alive and projects very well. Depending upon your set up, it can have a Trumbauer lightness or it can be on the darker side. I think of this as being more of a "natural" c-melody sound. I really like this sound. It's different from an alto or a tenor. It's something unique.

[OLDAIR]

I have to weigh in on this one. What is a C-melody sound? Most people have never seen one let alone heard one. The number of people who have recorded with a C-melody (and admitted to it!) can probably be counted on one hand. There is certainly a lot of room for tonal variation on soprano - alto and tenor, as evidenced by any number of sax players. Why should we not strive for tonal variation on a C-melody? For me, intonation should be first - followed by saying yes to the following question. "Do I like what I'm hearing?" If I could get my C-melody to sound like a clarinet, or an alto, or a tenor - why would I care, as long as this sound worked for me and what I was trying to do musically?

I had a Runyon C-mel mouthpiece for a while. It had great tone and a lyrical quality in the upper octaves. But I could never get it to play in tune - way sharp. I've gone back to a really cheap Rico Graftonite A5 tenor mouthpiece and have no problems with intonation. It plays easily from top to bottom and has PLENTY volume and projection. Someday I'd like to try a Morgan - a Leblanc and a vintage Selmer jazz. Actually I'd like to try a whole roomful of mouthpieces if I had the time and money. But I wouldn't be looking for an 'authentic' C-melody sound. I'd be looking for whatever I liked best.

[Bootman]

I have a Meyer C Melody mpc, refaced and tweaked by JVW to play like a NY Meyer. This is the best C melody mpc I have ever found. It uses a tenor reed too. The sound is unusual and I have trouble getting a handle on it because it sounds like a tenor and an alto similtaneously. It is unique and the horn plays really well too but I find it hard to find a use for it on a gig.

[markieg]

I found out some interesting news today under the mpc topics. Johannes Gerber is working on an alto mpc that takes tenor reeds. I posted in there that I would be interested in a C-mel piece that takes tenor reeds. I think he only makes metal, and his site lists them as about $200. Maybe you could talk to him.

[Wade2]

I did some work with c-melody mouthpieces on my web site. Check it out at http://home1.gte.net/wwalker/tuning.htm.

The home page for the C-Melody site is http://home1.gte.net/wwalker/cmelody.htm

Also check out the forum threads about mouthpieces at http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=cmelody&boardid=cmelodym&spec=4 864557

[Helen]

I have to weigh in on this one. What is a C-melody sound? Most people have never seen one let alone heard one. The number of people who have recorded with a C-melody (and admitted to it!) can probably be counted on one hand. There is certainly a lot of room for tonal variation on soprano - alto and tenor, as evidenced by any number of sax players. Why should we not strive for tonal variation on a C-melody?

A C melody sound can be heard on the theme song from the 60s (?) TV show, My 3 Sons. It was c melody solo. (Is Nick At Night running the show at all?)

By the way, I'm not saying all C melodies have to sound alike, what I'm saying is that the C melody does have a charcteristic tone like a tenor has a characteristic tone. There are variations in tenor sounds of course, but you can still tell it's a tenor sax. Playing a tenor or alto mouthpiece changes the characteristic tone of the c melody. As long as you like the sound you produce, great. :mrgreen:

[Helen]

If you play a bari mpc on a bass sax, does its sound change to that of an "un-bass"?




It has not been my experience that playing a bari piece on the bass changes the sound characteristics of the bass sax radically. But then I have a modified baritone piece especially customized for use on bass sax. I also have an original bass mouthpiece. The modified bari piece has a lot more edge and punch to it. The bass piece is a very beautiful sounding mouth piece, but does not project extremely well. Great for classical music.

[Bootman]

The real difference between using a Bas sand a Bari mpc on a bass sax is that the bass sax mpcs definitely improve the middle D and Eb on a Bass. The don't jump like they do with a bari mpc. There is a tonal difference but it is not really that noticeable. I was having all sorts of Bass sax mpc nightmares until I obtained a refaced mpc from Sarge, this has made the workd of difference to how the Bass plays in terms of intonation, low end and projection with a big round sound.

I took the C melody out again today and was shocked as to how well the horn played. The sound was excellent although G3 can be problematic on this horn (the only horn I won where this is the case) but the rest of the altissimo speaks well. The JVW modified Meyer works beautifully. All I need know is to find new places to use this instrument professionally.

[Roger Aldridge]

Bootman,

Here's a thought.... Perhaps you can play your c-mel on some gigs without saying anything about it. You know, just go for it and let everyone grove on your sound. Of course, this might not work if you're supposed to be doing a gig on bass sax! :lol:

[singlereed]

Windcraft in the UK (part of Dawkes) sells two different c-melody pieces, a plastic one for about £15 and an ebonite one of their own brand for about £30. I found both these to be very similar in sound and facing to the original c-melody pieces I had with the two Buescher C-melodies I have owned. So, they played in tune, but I found they choked off the sound and made the instrument sound asthmatic just like the originals.

I bought a second hand modern Beechler HR no 5 C-melody piece and had it refaced by Anton Weinberg at Dawkes to match a Meyer 6 tenor piece, and that made all the difference - WOW! I sold the horn and the piece, then obtained a second C-melody (glutton for punishment) and got a new Beechler piece, think it was a 7. This was better than the previous un-refaced 5 but I didn't like it nearly as much as the refaced one. I should say though that I don't generally get on with Beechler facings on other size sax mouthpieces, so this may be personal, but as you all know, there are not many makes to choose from.

I have since sold the whole lot, but mention this in case 1) you need an authentic type piece for a reasonable price, perhaps with a view to getting it faced to your liking (go to Dawkes) or 2) you were thinking about getting a Beechler C-melody piece.

[OLDAIR]

I've heard Bootman play his C-Mel (via a shared sound clip). It's a beautiful thing - but I bet a blinded panel would have a hard time saying whether he is playing an alto or a tenor or a C-Mel. It sure doesn't sound like the same horn playing on the 'My Three Sons' tune or like anything that Scott Robinson does on C-Mel with an alto mouthpiece. Doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard from Traum either! Lots of room for tonal variation here and as Roger has said many times, the C-Mel is sort of a blank slate. The only thing I've heard that accurately describes a C-Mel sound is 'something between an alto and a tenor'. Who wants to volunteer to compile some C-Mel samples - describing horn and mouthpiece?

[Roger Aldridge]

OLDAIR,

Compiling some c-melody sound samples along with info about the set ups being used is a GREAT idea. I have rather primitive equipment around the house so I'm not the best person to do it. Let's see if some kind-hearted soul with the means to do it will step forward.

I'm still scratching my head over the concept that a c-melody's sound is somewhere between an alto and tenor. I have a couple of theories in progress about this: 1. A lot depends upon one's set up and 2. the c-melody, due to it's particular bore design, is largely a different animal from an alto and tenor; thus, it needs to be thought of as a unique instrument.

One excellent modern player whom I admire a lot is Dave Pierto. He uses a Beechler alto mouthpiece on a 20's Selmer Model 22 c-melody. When I listen to his recordings there are times when I have to really focus to tell when he's playing alto and when he's playing c-melody. He has a pretty dark sound on alto. However, one thing that can be a give-away is the weight of his sound on c-melody.

On the other hand, in my own experience with a c-melody (using a c-melody mouthpiece) I find that it's performance characteristics are very different from an alto or tenor. It has tonal qualities that to my ear are rather like a french horn and bassoon blended with a saxophone. But, I've also tried other kinds of mouthpieces -- such as a Meyer tenor piece -- which, as Hellen mentioned, changed the sound and feeling of the horn.

So, when it comes to the c-melody I guess everything is up for grabs. That helps to make it a really cool adventure.

[Bootman]

The C melody sound is an interesting thing, I always get the feeling that I should be playing French Classical Saxophone music when ever I play this horn. It can be used nicely in a Jazz context but I would have a hard time trying to make it work in a contemporary setting. The sound almost defies description. I had forgotten how good this old C-melody was to play, but this could be because it is a mint condition silver plated straight neck model.

[OLDAIR]

The bore of the C-Melody does result in a unique tonal palette - but I've often wondered how difficult it would be to distinguish between an alto a C-Mel and a tenor if the piece being played consisted only of notes available on all three instruments - without altissimo. If one were perverse enough set up such an experiment and to deliberately try and skew results - mouthpieces could probably be selected with the deliberate intention of blurring the lines between them, such as using closed vintage mouthpieces on the alto and tenor, and a mouthpiece such as Bootman uses on his C-Mel or an alto mouthpiece such as Robinson and Pietro. Jeez - maybe I have too much time on my hands! I guess I've thought too long about what an 'authentic C-Melody sound' actually is!

I have enough equipment that I could probably burn some MP3 samples if we could find someplace to host them. MP3.com used to be great but now they only let you post 3 files for free. Maybe there are other free sites that could be used instead?

[Roger Aldridge]

Helen,

I'm curious how you know the solo saxophone on the My Three Sons theme is a c-melody. I used to watch that show years and years ago. Fred McMurray (sp?), the actor who played the father on the show, played saxophone in 30's bands before he made it as an actor. Somewhere I read -- again, this was a long time ago -- that Fred McMurray was the saxophone soloist on the My Three Sons theme song and that he was playing an alto. From what I recall, the sax was played with a vintage sound and style.

Perhaps I've got it wrong. But, this is one of those bits of TV trivia I carry around in the dark recesses of my mind. :lol:

[OLDAIR]

The first CD I was dver asked to play on was Owen Davis' "Fred MacMurray on Safari" Coincidence? I think not!

Now I'm really going to open myself up for ridicule now. I just got a new version of an MP3.com cut approved this morning. It is an older tune I did called O'Asis that I just added a C-Melody part to this winter. Now I've only been playing sax for about 3 months on this cut so don't expect a whole lot! But if you want to hear my Conn straight neck nickle plate C-Mel being played with a really cheap Rico Graftonite A5 mouthpiece then go here. http://www.mp3.com/V-Curmudgeon and listen to the O'Asis track. This is a sort of strange Celtic-Arabic folk-fusion thing with keyboards and fiddles and banjos and pennywhistles and now C-Melody.

[markieg]

It's possible that on "My 3 Sons" they played a Conn straight-neck. We all know how ungodly common these things are. They look like an alto, maybe just a little too large. Seen with the horn in a picture you would probably never know the difference without them right next to each other. Maybe this is also a wild goose chase that doesn't make sense.

[paulwl]

It's important to understand that Trumbauer's c-melody sound is different from his sound on alto. This should not come as a surprise. While the design of the c-melody bore is closer to an alto than a tenor, it's NOT the same as an alto. Thus, the air flow in a c-melody has more resistance than an alto and it's sound has a somewhat muted quality. As much as I love the c-melody, it would be a struggle to play the lead alto part on one in a large jazz ensemble. It simply doesn't have an alto's brillance of tone and level of projection.
I think you hit it (softly) on the head here, Roger. The only unanswered question is, what is that "not-the-sameness" in the bore design that brings about resistance?

I can get brightness out of the C using alto mouthpieces like Meyers, but it's a thin, gilding-the-lily kind of brightness. Maybe I should try one of Morgan's mpcs...

Another thot: I have brought straight-neck Cs to small group gigs and no one suspected that I wasn't playing alto.

[Roger Aldridge]

Paul,

If there is someone on the Forum who is a mechanical engineer, saxophone designer, or simply good at taking careful measurements, it would be MOST interesting to ask him/her to plot out the bore measurements of an alto, c-melody, and tenor. That is, with respect to diameter, length, and cone shape. Something like that might help to give us some factual insights into the special qualities of the c-melody. I'd LOVE to read about it!

My personal theory (that is, my guess!) about the particular tonal qualities of the c-melody concentrates on two main things: 1. the relationship between the fairly narrow alto-like diameter and the longer tenor-like length of the bore and 2. the amount of cone-shaped flair through the length of the tube and as you get closer to the bell. In eyeballing my horns, it appears to me that a c-melody has a narrower bore all the way through it's length. Does it seem that way to you? Thus, the shape and movement of the air column within the c-melody could be a factor in giving it more resistance as well as the french horn-like tonal quality that I hear with my c-mel.

Anyway, I'll have to leave it to others -- who really know this kind of stuff -- to figure it out. I'm pretty much just going by my ear. :lol:

[frankbiff]

I have thought about taking measurments of the bores of various saxes. The tech I use once did a study of clarinet bores, comparing different mfg. I'll ask him for advice, he measured the inside diameter vs. length, but the clarinet is straight, the bow of the sax may present problems. using the outside diameter you would have to know the thickness of the metal in order to compair different horn.

When I place a wurlitzur C made by Conn next to my Conn new wonder (aka Chu) I see a streched alto, much the same only longer. I think the bells a almost the same, so that would mean the taper is slower; since the lenght is longer.

[Bootman]

Oldair, the track sound very interesting. I dig the Fugue like quality to what is happening.

I use a straight alto neck C melody and find that it plays really well and dramatically improved the moemtn I stuck a wine cork down the bell. The wine cork eliminated the wobble on the low B and Bb.

Roger, I like the experiment and data base idea. i willtry that figure idea here on a tenor, alto and C melody. keep an eye on your inbox.

[OLDAIR]

To my eye, the bore looks almost exactly like an alto through most of its length. Perhaps it made economic sense to use the same tooling as a model already in production (alto) to fabricate the tube. I would have thought that an ideal design would have resulted in a different bore as well as a different length - after all, the tenor and the alto have different bores from top to bottom. Every string on a string insrument has a differen bore (diameter). So maybe it was an economic decision. The result is a rather unique sound but also an instrument that seems extraordinarily finicky about the mouthpieces it likes.

Since the metal is of fairly uniform thickness (to the degree that it would matter anyway), I'm sure that external caliper measurements could be made with sufficient accuracy, probably deducting 2mm for each measurement to account for wall thickness. Maybe I'll give it a go tonight.

[Roger Aldridge]

Bootman,

When I first got my c-melody and tried out all of the c-melody mouthpieces I could lay my hands on, I also had that wooble problem with the low B and Bb. Following your advice I put a wine cork down the bell and it immediately cleared up the wooble. However, one of the first things I noticed about using a Morgan c-melody mouthpiece is that the low B and Bb wobble completely disappeared. As a result, I was able to throw the wine cork away. The low notes now come out perfectly clear -- even when played very softly.

I asked Ralph Morgan about this and he said the wobble is mostly due to using a mouthpiece that doesn't have the correct length for a c-melody. If you're up for an experiment, push the mouthpiece further on the neck and try the low notes without the wine cork in the bell. Of course, the intonation will be thrown out of wack. But, this is just to see if the low notes come out any better by adjusting the placement of the mouthpiece. I'm really curious about what this will do on your set up. Please let me know if it makes a difference or not.

[OLDAIR]

For what it's worth - I had my tech go over my horn very recently. He made some subtle adjustments in key heights and regulation that combined to (Almost!) eliminate the low B and Bflat problems. The B is now solid as a rock - the B flat still needs the wine cork with my mouthpiece. He told me that a colorful term for this phenomenon (which also occurs on other saxes to a lesser degree) was "Motorboatin". It does sort of sound like a big old two cycle motor on idle!

Too bad you can't seem to try a Morgan out like other mouthpieces. I see that WW and BW does have some Excalibur pieces that you can try, but from Junkdude it is a no returns policy.

[Roger Aldridge]

Morgan Excalibur mouthpieces are only made for alto and tenor.

Ralph's c-melody pieces are kind of different from his usual models. Here's the deal about them....

For several months last year I bugged Ralph about making a c-melody mouthpiece for me. He would say that it would cost around $35,000 in start up money to develop a new line of mouthpieces (casting molds, etc). Thus, he'd say that it wasn't possible given the limited market. However, after making a pest of myself, he and his guys started to think about the possibility of using one of their existing jazz tenor mouthpieces as a blank to make a mouthpiece that is acoustically correct for a c-melody.

They spent quite a bit of time researching the c-melody and measuring vintage mouthpieces. Finally, they determined that they could shorten their jazz tenor piece and do some serious scrapping to enlarge the chamber so the length and chamber volume measurements would be right. Ralph sent me his first c-melody mouthpiece to try out. It simply blew me away! I called back and raved about how good it is. Ralph then started to make the mouthpiece available as part of his production line. However, one needs to understand that every Morgan c-melody mouthpiece first starts out as a tenor piece and that a considerable amount of work is done by hand on it to transform it into a c-melody mouthpiece. This is the reason why it's more expensive than other comparable Morgan mouthpieces.

Now, there's something else interesting about Ralph's mouthpiece. The first c-melody mouthpiece he made for me was based upon a 6M tenor piece. The way that the chamber was enlarged turned it into a large chamber mouthpiece. BUT, there are some subtle differences between the Morgan M and L mouthpieces other than their respective chamber designs. Several months ago I asked Ralph to make me another c-melody mouthpiece to serve as a back up. When it arrived I discovered that it's slightly shorter than the original mouthpiece and that it has some different playing characteristics. It's a bit darker, has a fatter sound, and has a bit more resistance than the original piece. By comparison, the original mouthpiece is more easy blowing, is a bit brighter, and has more projection.

I asked Ralph about this and learned that the newer c-melody mouthpieces are based upon the L tenor piece...not the M. Ralph said that by starting with the L (large chamber) mouthpiece it saves a good half hour in labor time. I asked Ralph if one could still order a c-melody mouthpiece that starts as a M and he said yes. I haven't asked him about this lately. But, it sounds like one can ask for a "M" as a special order. Otherwise, most of the Morgan c-melody mouthpieces are based on a L.

So, you see, there are a number of subtle aspects to the Morgan c-melody mouthpieces.

Personally, I like both of them. However, I tend to use the original mouthpiece (the "M") more often. It works better for me as a jazz c-melody mouthpiece. On the other hand, I feel more comfortable with the "L" in a classical or small ensemble setting. The french horn-like quality that I often talk about REALLY comes out in my sound with the "L" mouthpiece. With the "M" I hear more of the bassoon quality that I've also talked about.

These really are exceptional mouthpieces! Their measurements are based on vintage c-melody mouthpieces. BUT, they don't sound like a vintage piece. They sound like a Morgan. When Steve Goodson worked on my c-melody last year he tried my Morgan mouthpiece (the original one) and was very impressed with it. He called me on the phone and raved about it.

Anyway, that's the scoop on the Morgan c-melody pieces.

[OLDAIR]

You might want to skip this if you hate math!

If we proceed from the assumption that the bore of a saxophone expands in a linear fashion, and for the main body of the sax this appears to be the case, we can extrapolate the pitch of the cone formed with a few simple measurements. Interior or exterior doesn't matter that much except that the interior measurements would be unimpeded by posts and keys and levers and such. All you have to do is take two measurements of the diameter of the sax at two different points and take the difference between the two. Then measure the distance between the two points where you measured the diameter. I measured a Martin Soprano, a Pan American Alto, A "Chu" Conn C-Mel and a Buescher Elkhart tenor. Here is what I got difference first then distance.

S .53125 inches over 8 inches
A .34375 inches over 6.5 inches
C .34375 inches over 7.25 inches
T .53125 inches over 9.75 inches

You haven't learned anything until you divide the distance by the difference. This gives you the number of inches in length the tube must increase to get a one inch difference in diameter. OK?

S 15.059
A 18.92
C 21.09
T 18.353

Therefore it looks like the C-Mel has the most restrictive bore and that the Soprano has the least restrictive bore. The alto and tenor are virtually the same and are frankly probably within the tolerances of my ability to measure. I was surprised to find that the soprano and C-Mel have apparently radically different design characteristics. Check my math and your own measurements and let me know if I am wrong.

[Bootman]

Roger,
I haven't noticed any great horrors with the intonation on the low B and Bb using the wine cork but then again I haven't done any serious checking this out with a tuner. I will remedy this shortly.

The Morgan C melody sounds very interesting and I will have to check this out too but because the refaced Meyer I have (smaller than a tenor mpc and bigger than an alto) works so well, I haven't felt the need to do anything about it.

The horn plays without the Cork down the bell but you have to be careful that you supply enough air for these notes. I feel that it really is a resistance thing primarily.

[djonk]

Oldair, very interesting....yes, we can all extrapolate, with you!!!

<<Soprano has the least restrictive bore>> Would this give the soprano an Obo sound? I would think not, but perhaps a dark sound. ???

[OLDAIR]

So it looks like the C-Melody bore really is pretty radically different from an alto or a tenor in that the taper of its bore expands much more gradually through its length than other horns. So the physics of the horn suggests strongly that it have a mouthpiece that has some special characteristics. I can attest to the fact that the C-Mel is very, very finicky about mouthpieces.

Roger is convinced that the Morgan mouthpieces are the answer. Could be. But it would be really nice to be able to try one on a trial basis. I am reluctant to order a $200 mouthpiece that I can't return because what works for Roger might not work for me. Case in point, I had a Runyon C-Melody mouthpiece that MANY other people have reported works very well. But try as I might I could never get it to play in tune. The upper octave would go way sharp no matter what I did. I am thinking about placing an order from WW&BW for a Le-Blanc C-Mel mouthpiece that I can return if it doesn't work any better than what I have. I'd love to hear from other people with experience with C-mel mouthpieces from Street- Ackerman - Meyer etc. Also Bear at Cybersax suggests that certain vintage tenor mouthpieces work well with the C-Mel. Robinson and Pietro obviously can do wondrous things with alto mouthpieces (just short of a miracle IMHO!).

Roger - want to pass around your Morgan for the rest of us to try? :lol:

[cmelodysax]

Been watching this with interest as I have a few C-Mels that I'm doing up, looking for the perfect horn (OK, so I'm a masochist....). :D
Currently working on a Buescher stencil, and have tried all my normal tenor Larsen/Link/Couf etc. combinations with differing results, always with pitch compromises, and they all have to go on so far ! (in fact, too far for micro-tuner necks. )
So I went back to try some older C-Mel mpcs I have, all too stuffy, but then I took an average C-Mel mpc and started checking physical sizes, internal & external, with all my standard mouthpieces.
And a good match ? A Berg Larsen hard-rubber Alto (with Rico Royal #3 alto reed) ! Tried it, eureka !
Now alto mpcs usually sacrifice thickess/fullness of tone on C-Mels, but not this one, even looks proportionally right.
Knock me over with a feather, all the other alto mpcs I've tried have been too thin & reedy, but this one is full & frisky - and in tune throughout the range + altissimo. Have I cracked it, or am I about to go around in ever decreasing circles again.......?

[Roger Aldridge]

OLDAIR,

Ralph Morgan's c-melody mouthpiece has been a good answer for me. But, given how one size doesn't fit all regarding mouthpieces, horns, and players I'm not saying that it's THE answer for everyone.

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before on the Forum....
Through letters I traded with Scott Robinson a year or two ago it's clear to me that he's doing a lot of adjusting when he plays on his set up. He told me that he tends to play in the upper range and that the lower range intonation on his horn is problematic. Of course, when we listen to him it sounds like he's playing on a horn that has perfect intonation all through it's range. But, that's simply NOT TRUE. It sounds that way because Scott's such a fine player. The good higher range intonation is probably due to the length of his Selmer metal alto mouthpiece. The lower range problems may possibly be due to the alto mpc not having enough chamber volume for an early model Conn c-melody. But, Scott also mentioned that his horn needs to have some work done on it.

One thing I've found with my Morgan mouthpieces is that they reflect Ralph's conception of the c-melody. I don't mean to speak for him. But, in conversations we've had I've gotten the impression that he has a particular tonal conception of the c-melody in mind. In a similar way, when we've talked about the C clarinet he's told me that a C clarinet has a different type of sound than a Bb. Thus, from his point of view when a Bb clarinet mouthpiece is used on a C clarinet it takes away some of the special tonal qualities of a C clarinet. With this in mind, if someone is pushing the envelope of their c-melody to have a more contemporary sound (whatever that means) or to have as much volume as a tenor roarin' away at full blast then the Morgan mpc may not give this person what he's looking for.

Sorry OLDAIR, I use the Morgan pieces I have. Can't loan them out. But, if you're ever in the Washington-Baltimore area you're welcome to drop by and give them a try.

It sounds like Tinminer is on to something!!!! If it works for you, go for it.

[cmelodysax]

Roger, I may be on to something, but I have this sinking feeling that it's probably only good for this horn. I think the only sane way is to either, as you have done, spend decent money on a 'real' modern C-Melody mouthpiece - or maybe have the original mouthpiece opened up, but then it probably won't handle altissimo.

Your comments about 'mouthpiece too long' etc. only echo my problems. I too can get the middle and top of a C-Mel amazingly in tune, and sounding really good, only to find the bottom octave is out by almost a semitone at it's lowest......

I think decision time is coming up fast, I really want to spend more time playing these beautiful horns than forever mix'n'matching mouthpieces. Alan.

[paulwl]

I notice nobody is admitting whether they're sharp or flat on the low end...I'm sharp with most mouthpieces (including C melody barrel chambers). Starting at low D and continuing down to about two bits sharp at Bb. Correctable by embouchure and pad heights, but only at some cost in tonal clarity and ease of attack. More a problem on the Conn than the Buescher, interestingly enough.

Could this be a built-in fault in that constricted bore, perhaps intended to bring more mellowness to the soln register (back when all solos were in more or less the same register)?

[MojoBari]

You can open you low Bb and B pad heights back up and fix the low note sharpness by making the bore smaller in the bell. I did this with my C soprano. Try it out with Play-Doh. Make a rope of the stuff and mash it down in the bell away from the tone hole openings. Make it long enough to help the low D (D1) if that is where you problems start. It will also flatten D2 which is probably sharp for you too.

[MojoBari]

You may also find the bore/taper measurements interesting from here:

http://home1.gte.net/wwalker/sopcompare.htm

[OLDAIR]

Well I'd still be willing to try and host a compilation of C-Mel sound clips. I'd love to hear the setups of Helen and Pauwl and Roger and Tinminer and Bootman and anybody else willing to contribute. If I can get some WAV files of no more than 20-25 seconds in length, I will rip them into MP3's and host them on my web site for a little while anyway - Maybe Wade could put them on the C-Mel site at some point.

It is impossible to obtain a level playing field given the diversity of recording environments/equipment/mic placement/skill levels etc. but I think it would be helpful to be able to hear SOMETHING from the various setups!

What about these as ground rules for the clip?

1. Provide the model C Melody you are playing on (straight neck or curved) (Is the wine cork in or out!!!?)
2. Provide the mouthpiece and any relevant info (tip opening, table length, baffle, reed brand and hardness)
3. Play the C scale (diatonic) from bottom to top plus the upper palm keys
4. Play the C scale (diatonic) from top to bottom
5. Play from C down to Bflat in long tones
6. Play altissimo (if you can or want to) separate from the simple scales
7. No Reverb or other effects
8. Recordings from albums would have to be in the public domain or the rights not in dispute. (Over 30 years old?)

Pace and speed is up to you.

Any other ideas? Any interest?

[Roger Aldridge]

Paul,

The intonation in the low range of my c-melody is quite good. In fact, it's right on the mark. Even when I first got the horn the low range was good. The biggest problem I had with my c-melody was G up to open C#. It was terrible! :x Steve Goodson did some serious work on it last year and was able to tame the beast. He got it to the point where I only have to use alternate fingerings for middle C and C#. This is something that I can EASILY live with. Before, I had alternate fingerings flying all over the place!!! I'm very happy with the intonation now.

Something that's important to me is to be able to explore the full range of the c-melody. To my ear, there are around 4 distinct tonal qualities through it's range. The upper range has a brighter, fairly alto-like quality. Around middle F or E the sound becomes rounder and more mellow. Somewhere around A the sound begins to take on a reedier quality. Finally, from around low F down to Bb it can have a distinctly bassoon-like quality. At least, this is how I hear it with my set up (using the Morgan "M"). The notes that I quoted are approximations. There's not a clear line between tonal sections...one blends into another.

For me, it would be unbearable to have a section of the horn with intonation so funky that I couldn't use it very much. I enjoy exploring these different tonal possibilities in my playing! :D There are plenty of times when I completely get off on the c-melody's low register -- sometimes playing softly with that bassoon-like quality and other times digging hard in the low ranger in more of a tenor style. The c-melody is the most AMAZING horn! :lol:

[MojoBari]

I have a Buescher 185,000 (curved neck) that I have not had out of the case much for 10 years. It still has the original white pads. A client had me reface his "France" otherwise no-name Cmel mouthpiece to .092". It turned out better than my Cmel Buescher MP that I had Bob Ackerman reface years ago.

My low bell notes are quite flat. ~ 1/4 tone. The high F is very flat. The rest is lip-able fairly easily, the 2nd octave is generally sharper than the first.

With the .092" MP, sounds much more like a Bb tenor than an alto. Too bad I have to send the MP away...

[OLDAIR]

The only note I notice as problematic when I play is the middle C#, which plays flat on any long tone without an alternate fingering. A fast passage through this note doesn't usually bother me. Otherwise I don't notice any big problems though I probably am lipping some notes without thinking about it much anymore. Checked by ear against a tuning CD instead of a machine. If it sounds in tune when you play music- it IS in tune. Nickle plated Conn 'Chu' straight-neck with an A5 Graftonite - Alexander Superial reed.

[cmelodysax]

Mojobari - that sums up exactly the intonation on my Buescher stencil - and using an Alto Berg Larsen 95/1 hard rubber does make it sound more like a 'youthful' tenor than any of the other (closer) alto mouthpieces I've tried.
Going back to the similar tenor Larsen that I had been using now makes it muffled by comparison..... Thanks, it's useful to find some kind of 'norm' - and in fairness I have to say I've had similar intonation problems with some vintage altos and tenors from the 20's, so I don't want to put all the blame on the poor old (lovely) C-Mels.

I now need to try alto (instead of tenor) mpcs on the Conn microtuner straight-neck - may help with the problem that most of the tenor mpcs that sounded good on it just wouldn't go on far enough to get in tune. I have a problem with tuners anyhow, a note that shows as flat when played gently will often show as rising in pitch when the tone is 'flared' with added harmonics, but to the ear the actual 'heard' pitch doesn't seem to change. OLDAIR - very good point, I suspect playing against a sound source will be more productive than a tuner, because often when it sounds good to me, the tuner is telling me it's 20-30% off.

[Dave Dolson]

I got out my Buescher TT C-mel today and did some experimenting with various mouthpieces and reeds. Now I have an appointment with my tech because I discovered three small leaks at various locations.

However, the horn plays. The Street C-mel mouthpiece is about the same length as my alto Super Session piece, but fatter - and the inside opening is larger (the inside). I tried the Street with tenor and alto reeds - both worked but the alto reeds gave me more sound. Overall, the sound was somewhat stuffy and response was iffy, especially down low. To play those low notes, I really had to open and relax the ol' embouchure.

Then I tried my favorite alto pieces - and they played a lot better than the Street C-mel piece. I had to let them out on the cork a lot more than the C-mel piece to tune to my piano (which is in tune), but the horn played in tune top to bottom with alto pieces. The Super Session was best, the Soloist a bit less, and the Meyer the lesser of the three alto pieces I tried on it.

Lastly, the TT C-mel still has a wierd tone to it - it does not sing nor project like my TT alto (or any of my other altos, for that matter), but that could be just a matter of getting used to the size and the awkward feel with that long, curved neck. I end up holding the thing like Prez! DAVE

[MojoBari]

My Buescher C mel also has the worse tone hole rim I have ever seen. They are all straight (not rolled). The C1/C2 rim has a ~1/16" jagged step in it. The spongy pads on it cover it up decent enough to play past it. Its ugly.

[OLDAIR]

Dave, interesting. I think Scott Robinson plays some kind of modified Selmer Alto piece. Maybe Roger can tell us what it is. I've tried 3 alto pieces (Conn Steelay, Selmer Goldentone Hite Premier) on my C-Mel as well as a vintage tenor Soloist, but didn't think they were acceptable. I was going to order some mouthpieces on trial from WW and BW but some are on backorder until October! I think I am going to get another Rico A5 tenor and experiment on it in the meantime. I'm going to mount it on my lathe and trim about 1/8 to 1/4 inch off the shaft (a little bit at a time) so I can get some adjustment back into the adjustable tuner. Right now I have it run all the way in. I'd like to find out whether pushing the mouthpiece on further would have any effect. If that works, I'm also tempted to remove some of the baffle to get just a little darker tone.

I'm really pretty happy with the sound I'm getting out of the Rico - but from C down to Bflat its just a little harsh to my ears and hard to play softly. While I think the upper palm keys sound very good, the upper F sometimes feels like it might break up - and altissimo is a distant dream so far. Also, I don't think it is natural that any burble is there without a wine cork! I think Roger is right on the mark when he attributes this phenomenon to the mouthpiece on a horn that is otherwise adjusted and leak free. Viva la experiment!

[Roger Aldridge]

OLDAIR,

What I know of Scott Robinson's mouthpiece is that it's an older Selmer metal alto mouthpiece (probably 70's era) that was worked on by Joe Viola and given to Scott when he was one of Joe's students at Berklee. Scott didn't go into any detail about what Joe did to the mouthpiece. But, I'd think that Joe must have tried to enlarge the chamber. The mouthpiece has a lot of emotional meaning for Scott. Anyone who studied with or knew Joe Viola knows why.

[Dave Dolson]

I took my TT C-mel to Rhueben Allen (a noted L.A. tech) today to plug some holes. He had a new Beechler #7 C-mel mouthpiece he said was very popular among the C-mel players he services. He loaned it to me to try when I get the horn back from him. I described my alto-vs.-Street C-mel playing and he immediately said the problem with alto pieces is that they have to go far out on the neck (this without me telling him that's exactly what I'd experienced).

I should get the horn back in a week or two - I'll post results with the Beechler. DAVE

[Roger Aldridge]

Dave,

Exactly!!! :D Generally speaking, good intonation on a c-melody = correct length + correct volume of the mouthpiece.

Alto pieces typically have to be pulled out because they don't have enough chamber volume for a c-melody. Pulling the mouthpiece farther out on the cork gives the "missing part of the cone" beyond the end of the neck pipe more volume. However, the longer length of the air column resulting from pulling out the mouthpiece screws up the length part of the formula.

Thus, the trick is to have a mouthpiece that's about the length of an alto mouthpiece...but, with a chamber that's MUCH, MUCH bigger. In fact, the chamber volulme needs to be a bit more than a comparable tenor mouthpiece. This will enable one to have the mouthpiece placed in a position on the neck cork so that the length of the air column is right for the instrument. This should enable one to have decent intonation all through the range of the horn.

Paul Coats put this information together in a really excellent message on the Tone Producing section of the Forum. The thread is called something like Pulling Out, Pushing In.... It should be easy enough to find it. His message is one of the best written descriptions I've seen about mouthpiece length & volume. Of course, Ralph Morgan told me about all of this verbally in our discussions about the c-melody.

[frankbiff]

If that is correct then each Sax (type and brand) will have one and only one chamber/length combination in a mpc that will work, all others will give intonation probelms. It seems that intonation problems as related to different mpcs are manly a problem of the older vintage horns. There must be more to it; why do moderen horns play in tune with a wide varitiey of mpcs with many different chamber sizes? The tuning on my Conns (1919 C and 1929 alto) is very sensitive to the mpc chamber size, requiring almost a 1/2" change in position going from a Selmer Goldentone to a Rico grahtonite. However many people seem to be able to play their horns in tune with both, for example, Links and Dukoffs.

Perhaps modern horns are designed for medium size chambers and therefore will not play too bad going smaller or larger whereas older horns where designed for large chambers and so going small is a big change. If so when did the change take place? and if a design change did take place it should be evident in the dimensions of the horn. So what changed.

[cmelodysax]

Just like to say 'Thanks Guys ! ' - I'm learning more with each posting, certainly explains why I always have neck-cork problems when changing mouthpieces, because of the different chamber sizes, and hence the 'well on' or 'half out' position. (as well as the fact that some mpcs, like Bergs, are a snug fit anyway)
frankbiff, just to restate from an earlier posting of mine - "and in fairness I have to say I've had similar intonation problems with some vintage altos and tenors from the 20's, so I don't want to put all the blame on the poor old (lovely) C-Mels. "
This is one very useful topic....

[MojoBari]

Roger mentioned a "length part of the formula". I think the mouthpiece length relationship is important, but I have only seen calculations for cone volumes used for mouthpiece analysis. Length is determined/modified emperically. I think volume is best determined emperically too. I've tried the caculations and I get better intonation results playing pieces that are a off (up to 20%) the theoretical numbers. The player's oral cavity and tonal concept are big factors determining the optimal mouthpiece for him.

As for why some vintage horns seem to be mouthpiece picky, I think modern horns are more in tune with themselves by design/adjustment. So if you play a piece on a modern sax that knocks the intonation out some, you can deal with it. If you play the same piece on a vintage horn that is already out of tune in the same direction, it becomes offensive. So you look fo a piece that might offset the intonation problems of a vintage sax. These pieces will typically play fine on modern saxes too, even though they may knock the intonation out a little the other way.

[Dave Dolson]

I am NO expert on mouthpiece design (chamber volume, lay, etc.) but I know what plays well for me. The alto pieces played much better than the C-mel piece on my C-Mel . . . and I experienced no intonation issues when the alto pieces were further out on the cork.

The Bill-Street-C-Mel piece was about the same length as my alto Super Session but probably the interior of the C-Mel piece was different. That may account for different positioning on the cork for overall intonation. Like I posted before, I'm anxious to try another brand of C-Mel mouthpiece (Beechler 7) when I get the horn out of the shop. Until then, I can't comment further.

Still, I have not experienced the poor-intonation-caused-by-mouthpiece-issues so widely discussed on SOTW. I own (and have owned) many vintage as well as new saxophones AND mouthpieces over the years. Once I find a good mouthpiece for soprano or alto, I use that on every instrument in my battery. If a mouthpiece plays well for me, it will play on anything I've put it on - and those pieces I play now are brand new Selmers. If one of MY horns had a poor scale, NOTHING helped it.

I saw something above about Steel-lay mouthpieces. A noted C-Melody player (who has since passed away), Rosy McHargue, used a Buescher TT C-Mel and a Steel-lay mouthpiece. He was superb - in the 1920's vein. I recorded with Rosy on one LP record and played many gigs with him. A great guy and a great player. DAVE

[Roger Aldridge]

One thing I've learned over the years is that there are few absolutes in music. Common sense tells me the best mouthpiece intonation-wise for a c-melody should be the original mouthpiece that came with the horn. This piece should have the correct length and volume. HOWEVER, this kind of c-melody mouthpiece doesn't work for me musically. The sound is tubby, muffled, and not at all suitable for the styles of music that I like to play. Thus, in this situation the personal artistic/expressive side of music is at odds with it's science side (ie, saxophone acoustics).

This suggests to me that if we found a magical mouthpiece that has just the right measurements for our particular vintage saxophone we might not like it as players. You know? :lol: Therefore, it seems to me that we have to take into account the FUDGE FACTOR when it comes to our equipment. That is, to find a mouthpiece that gets us in the ball park with respect to saxophone acoustics and has the playing characteristics that fits our tonal concepts and style. It's pretty much a balancing act! If the mouthpiece is within the acoustical ballpark we can adjust as players and make it work for us.

One of the problems we've been discussing about the c-melody is how the selection of modern c-melody mouthpieces is pretty limited. Some of them are good. Others are, frankly, not really c-melody mouthpieces (with respect to length & volume) -- even though they are being marketed as c-melody mouthpieces. It's true! For this reason it's harder to find a good c-melody mouthpiece than it is to find a good mouthpiece for alto or tenor.

I'm not sure about Mojo's last paragraph. I'll use my 1928 Buescher soprano as an example. It's intonation is exceptionally good. It's truly a fantastic horn! I definitely prefer it to a new Selmer. However, if a mouthpiece is used that doesn't have enough chamber volume the horn's intonation is thrown out of wack. It's clear to me that the problem is with the mouthpiece and not the horn. Thus, the trick is to find a mouthpiece that's a good acoustical match for the horn while being a good match for us as a player.

It seems to me that one of the key concepts in our discussion is pretty straight forward: vintage saxophones were acoustically designed with a certain type of mouthpiece in mind regarding length & volume. Generally speaking, the kind of modern mouthpieces we have now -- with more open tip opening and smaller chambers -- didn't exist then. Thus, when SOME modern mouthpieces are used on a vintage horn the intonation can be problematic because the acoustical "numbers" (as Ralph Morgan describes it) are thrown out of wack. As I found with my vintage soprano, when you find a mouthpiece that's a good acoustical match for the horn it can play like a dream and have excellent intonation.

[cmelodysax]

Roger, I agree with your sentiments, and it explains something I haven't analysed in depth. Apart from teens playing 'trad', my pedigree is 60's Soul Bands, thro' to Fusion, with gentle jazz on the side. Because of this I grew up in the 'Berg larsen sound' era, with Links for mellower jazzy sounds, and Lawtons for paint-peeling and chandelier-smashing ! :D .
Having now a box-full of these, and others, I now understand why I have to keep switching mpc makes, and metal vs. rubber etc. on all the elderly C-Mels and alto's in my quest for the perfect pair to play into the sunset..... What is great on a Martin is rubbish on a Conn and mediocre on a Buescher, and vice- versa for the next horn I try. And whilst, on my 80's Keilwerth tenor, switching between Rubber & Metal Larsens is no big deal, on my 30's Martin tenor it is tricky to retain the flexibility & tuning - probably because the Martin was proven around the 'big-chamber' close-lay rubber mpcs of that era.
Looks like, with vintage horns, it's more a case of matching the mouthpiece to the horn, and maybe having to compromoise (just a little) on the range of achievable sounds - although I've also found that many mpcs have hidden depths, usually only found after a settling-in period.

[MojoBari]

Like you said Roger, there are no absolutes. But, do you think the MP you use on your TT sop plays well and in tune for you on a new Selmer?

[Roger Aldridge]

Mojobari,

Since I got squared away with my TT set up I was so blown away by it that I haven't felt a need to play another soprano. Thus, I'm not able to answer your question. My soprano is currently at Steve Goodson's. Steve is making some modifications to the horn so that it will be physically easier for me to play it. When I get it back I can take the mouthpiece to the local music shop and try it on a new Selmer. My gut feeling is that it should work reasonably well on a Selmer. The mouthpiece is one that Ralph Morgan made for me as a custom order. He took one of his jazz soprano pieces and converted it into a classical soprano mouthpiece with a larger tip opening. The length of the mouthpiece was not changed. The chamber may be a bit larger. It will be an interesting experiment to try it on a new horn.

[Dave Dolson]

Roger, et al: One thing to consider is developing design philosophies. In the days of the vintage saxophones (1920's, basically) a lot of designing was done with what we now consider to be crude tools. True, my vintage Bueschers and Conns are terrific, but their mouthpieces (I've owned the original mouthpieces) were - how can I put this - TERRIBLE (at least for me).

I've owned some vintage saxophones that had poor intonation, too. All of the newly made, hi-end saxophones I own/owned have good scales.

New saxophones and mouthpieces have the benefit of computer-generated designs, better measuring devices, better forming machines, etc. (I am not arguing that newly made saxophones are any better, but many are on a par with well-made vintage horns). So it is with mouthpieces. What was believed to be sufficient in the '20's may have been surpassed with modern pieces. Again - true that vintage players sure made those set-ups work!

But now, we have the advantage of newly designed and newly made products. While I still prefer vintage horns, I own both vintage and new, and any of them are suitable for public performance.

But when it comes to mouthpieces, give me newly-made every time. To reply to MojoBari's question to Roger, my Super Session pieces (soprano and alto, my S-80 soprano pieces, my new Soloist alto piece, and other newer pieces) play well on all of my saxophones. Specifically, I have an SS J-facing piece for my S992, my SC902, and my Buescher TT sop. When I had my Serie III soprano, it also was best with the SS piece. My alto Super Session works great on my TT, A992, Conn Chu and Cigar Cutter. DAVE

[OLDAIR]

So when you guys find other mouthpieces that work, maybe you could post some other info about it. You know, length, chamber size, baffle design, chamber shape, facing, tip opening. It sounds like Vintage short shank tenor mouthpieces would be worth trying, but I don't happen to have any lying around.

[knighttrain]

Just thought I'd share my experience with you. I have a Conn Straight Neck on which I employ two different mouthpieces. The first is a vintage French piece (no name) that gives a traditional soft dark sound. When I want most projection and brightness, I use a LeBlanc B6 C-Melody MP to which I've added a high baffle. This really does the trick when played with a #3 Rico Royal. I can still go soft with this, but the power is on call when I need it. No stuffiness here!

[Roger Aldridge]

Everyone,

I've been so curious about the Morgan EL mouthpieces (ie, GAS attack!!!) that I ordered a B-Stock 6EL tenor mouthpiece just to see what it would do on my c-melody with respect to power and sound. As I had expected, the intonation was not in the acceptable range. The horn had a little bit more power. But, not by a huge amount. (I was happy to confirm that a 6M can hold its own against a 6EL!) The main thing I noticed is how the sound dramatically changed. It was exactly as Helen wrote about! The sound took on a much harder quality. It didn't sound quite like a tenor to me. Perhaps it could be described as a c-melody pumped up on some illegal substance. :lol: Anyway, this sound didn't do anything for me. I then switched back to my Morgan 6M c-melody mouthpiece. The intonation was superb. But, even more importantly, the quality of sound felt really good. It's a warmer and sweeter kind of sound. Yeah, this is what I like on the c-melody.

Anyway, this was a fun experiment.

[cmelodysax]

OLDAIR - I've posted this on the C-Mel forum, but I'll put it up here as well, as you asked for more details. Disregard the irrelevant bits....
-------
Despite playing Martin alto & tenor, I've finally settled on a lacquer Conn 'New Wonder' s/no 68xxx (1921?), but with the original straight neck replaced by a silver Conn (stencil) curved neck. Best of both worlds, great action and more comfortable playing position with the curved neck ! The straight neck felt like I was always pushing the horn away, plus the curved neck seems to help give a more contemporary sound, apologies to the purists !

I've adopted a 'stepped neck cork' approach, because I have a couple of mouthpieces that give good results. I use an alto HR Berg Larsen 95/1 SMS, and a tenor HR Otto Link Tone-Edge 7 for different sounds, both mouthpieces play quite acceptably well in tune throughout the range. Because the alto mpc sits 'well-out' and the tenor mpc 'well-in', I've the last inch of the cork at a suitable size for the alto mpc - with a thin layer of extra cork further in which holds the tenor Link mpc well, whilst still allowing for adjustment on each..

I switch between Rico Royal and La-Voz reeds, around medium strength, as circumstances dictate, using the standard metal ligs that came with the mpcs. I've tried leather Rovners etc, but find that whilst they are great on metal mpcs, they don't do a lot for HR - which is what I'm using here. Only small problem is the dreaded 'gurgling' on low B/Bb when using the alto mpc - I know all about the 'cork in the bell - but as I use the alto mpc for an edgier, more focussed sound (rather than the fatter 'bluesy' tenor mpc sound, where all notes are fine) these two notes don't get used a lot. Both mouthpieces are fine for 'standard' altissimo/harmonics as well, which is another reason for settling for the Conn with the aux front-f key, even the dreaded G3 can be coaxed out. Nice !

Taken a lot of experimentation (lucky that I have a few C-Mels, plus a load of alto & tenor mpcs from a forty years playing) to get there tho' !! Some of the C-Mels came with original mouthpieces, all very close lays, I've resisted getting them opened out because I suspect they'll still be no good for harmonics - and they are nice as they are. Regards, Alan.

P.S. I have a few C-Mels (Martin, Conn, Buescher, York - incl. stencils) in varying states of repair, half of them reasonably playable, so I expect you'll see the odd working one on UK ebay from time to time, just so I can get part of my house back........ (this is not an advert :))

[OLDAIR]

TINMINER:

I just picked up a Conn Pan Am C-Mel, mostly to see if I could swap the neck in to hear/feel what it does to the tone and playing position. I'll post after it arrives and I get to test it out. Great post on the other mouthpieces - but what are the physical characteristics of these mouthpieces that might also be found in other models?

[cmelodysax]

OLDAIR - good luck with the PanAm neck, I tried one with the New Wonder, and indeed about 4 other necks that would fit the socket ( Martin are definately too big !). Some required a great deal of PTFE tape to fit snugly, and - apart from the, **shorter **, Conn 'Masterbilt' stencil curved neck now in use - all had tuning problems in upper vs. lower registers, too much to be useful.

How to measure the internals of the mpcs, hmmmm, but I will say that the Berg HR alto mpc is quite big inside & out, almost original C-Mel mpc size. The tenor HR Link is also quite chunky (technical term). I will say that the tips of both mouthpieces protruded from the neck to about the same distance - sweet spot theory again.... ?

Perversely, the alto HR Link, and the tenor HR Berg neither tuned nor sounded well, as also was the case with metal versions of three of them (except I don't have a metal alto Link) .

I have used all of the above pieces at some time or other on 20's/30's/40's alto's and tenor's with no memorable tuning problems, and very acceptable sounds, so the C-Mel is definately hyper-critical - as I'd expect, 'cos its not an alto or a tenor . And if I move all the mpcs to my other favourite, a Lyon & Healy 'American Professional' (Buescher stencil) it all changes.............. (tenor HR Berg wins there) Sigh.

[cmelodysax]

(Alologies, this was a duplicate posting, couldn't find how to cancel it - so I just deleted it)

[n9yty]

Did the project to catalog MP3 files of various horns, mouthpieces, reeds, etc. ever come to fruition?

I'm a new C-Melody player (new to sax as well) and would love to get some idea what I should be looking/listening for.

Thanks!

[Dave Dolson]

n9yty: Go to www.redhotjazz.com and search for the name Frankie Trumbauer (aka "Tram"). Tram recorded with Bix Beiderbecke extensively on C-Melody. DAVE

[Roger Aldridge]

Tinminer,

Your experiences remind me of something that happened last year. Wade Walker was conducting intonation experiments with various c-melody mouthpieces. One piece I sent him to test was a current production Beechler c-mel mouthpiece that I had refaced by JVW. The intonation on my Conn c-melody was problematic with this mouthpiece. However, when Wade tried it on his Buescher c-melody he absolutely raved about it. Thus, it appears that there are some acoustical/design differences between Conn and Buescher c-melodies.

Hmmmm, here's a question that just came to mind....

Has anyone compared original Buescher and Conn c-melody mouthpieces? If so, what did you find? Do they have a similar length?

[OLDAIR]

n9yty,

My offer got no responses - so I assume that nobody is interested. There a couple links in the thread above, and Bootman might send you a clip if you ask nice. You can also check out more current C-mel players, Scott Robinson and Dave Pietro are two that have recorded and released CD's that are readily available.

[OLDAIR]

I got the Pan Am yesterday. It's neck fits the socket perfectly on the New Wonder but is very tight on the Pan Am it came with! I'm suspecting that it may not be the original Pan Am neck now. I can't try it until I get it recorked, but I'll let you know.

Did anyone ever try and duplicate my measurements on other instruments? Do Buescher C-Mel horns have a different taper than Conns, Martins, Holtons, Yorks,,,?

[paulwl]

it appears that there are some acoustical/design differences between Conn and Buescher c-melodies.
For one thing, the necks don't swap. Not and still play in tune, anyway. The out-of-tune notes are also in different places. The Buescher has that tendency to inadequate venting around the first octave G (typical of True-Tones) that can make that part of the horn hard to voice up to pitch if you have to tune sharp.

Has anyone compared original Buescher and Conn c-melody mouthpieces? If so, what did you find? Do they have a similar length?
Conn pieces vary; so do Bueschers, but not as much. Bueschers tend to be shorter, closer tipped, with a flatter facing curve. Both have absolutely huge chambers, of course. In my experience, the Buescher piece works better on the Conn than vice versa.

[paulwl]

oops, double post...can't delete, but have edited it out. :oops:

[frankbiff]

Some taper measurements per Oldair

In inches of length needed to increase diameter an inch:

1919 Wurlitzer/ Conn curved neck C melody 20.9
1972 Selmer MKVI tenor 19.2
1930s Blessing/ Martin tenor (handcraft) 19.4
1929 Conn New Wonder Alto 18.5
1929 Beuscher TT Alto 17.7
1926 Conn straight sop 15.9

Measurments made with outside calipers, the old kind used to measure
stuff on a wood lathe, and transferd to a steel scale. Length measuerd with
a metal tape meauser. Not the most accurate by shows a trend.

[MojoBari]

YBS-52 27.72
Conn 10M 19.31
YAS-62 18.22
Straight Conn Bb Sop 16.61
Buescher C Sop 13.41

[MojoBari]

I measured just the neck taper and the top 4-5 inches on the sops.

[MojoBari]

Buescher C Mel 25.45

[OLDAIR]

MojoBari

You got a measurement of 27.71 on a tenor???
I'm not sure I understood your follow up. Is this a neck taper?
For what its worth all my measurements were taken from just below the neck socket to a point roughly 7-9 inches down the body.

[MojoBari]

YBS is a Yamaha Bari Sax. YAS = alto. I took the ID of each end of the neck and used a flex rulle for length. I used OD on the sops.

[frankbiff]

I measured from just above high F to just above the bow. ( and between B and Bb on sop.

[Dave Dolson]

I got my Buescher C-Melody out of the repair shop yesterday, and with it, I took a new Beechler #7 C-Mel mouthpiece for testing. I will buy the Beechler for the horn.

The Beechler was a huge improvement over what I was using before (a Bill Street C-Mel piece). The Beechler is longer but thinner on the outside than the Street piece. The Beechler had a larger round chamber opening while the Street's interior chamber opening appeared to be horseshoe- shaped.

The Beechler played with much more volume and clarity. The Street was stuffy for me next to the Beechler. The Beechler spoke well throughout the horn's range and the intonation seemed a better with the Beechler.

I used both tenor and alto reeds on it. The alto reed seemed to have more zing while the tenor reeds gave a fuller sound and were a little more mellow. The reeds were specifically tenor Plasticover #2 and Vandoren Java 2.5; alto was a newer Vandoren Java #2.

I guess MY problem with the C-Melody remains. After 47 years of soprano, then adding alto and clarinet, my chops are just not loose enough nor tough enough for a bigger horn like the C-Melody. Plus, no matter what I do, the thing is uncomfortable for me. The thing just won't sing like my sopranos or altos. Back in the closet!! DAVE

[Roger Aldridge]

Dave,

The c-melody isn't going to be for everyone. But, I'd encourage you to pull your c-mel back out of the closet and explore it for it's own unique qualities. In particular, now that you have a mouthpiece that works for you. The c-melody's sound IS quite different from your soprano and alto. It doesn't have their level of projection or as you described their singing quality. But, that's part of the charm of the c-melody -- it's so different from other saxophones. There might be some tunes that you've played for many years that can take on an entirely different sound and style with a c-melody. Ya never know. Anyway, best wishes on whatever direction you're led to take. :D

[Dave Dolson]

Roger: I appreciate the support, but in addition to the uncomfortable nature of the C-Mel and the lack of a singing quality, I find myself having difficulty in playing tunes in their original keys!! All of these years of transposing . . .

Of course, one should be able to play anything in any key (and for the most part, I can do that), it is just another issue that I don't need in my life now. I'll be okay with sop and alto. Thanks again. DAVE

[OLDAIR]

I just picked up a Morgan Protone Tenor mouthpiece to try on my Buescher Elkhart tenor. Of course I had to try it on the C-Mel too and am encouraged by the results. I need to get used to a harder reed to fully evaluate it, since the tip opening is smaller than what I'm used to, but the intonation seems to be quite good. It projects really strongly. This mouthpiece is a rather small tenor mouthpiece, shorter than most and tenor reeds actually extend past the table. If anyone else has one, let me know how it works on your C-Mel.

[Roger Aldridge]

Oldair and Everyone,

That's great news about the Morgan Pro-Tone mouthpiece! The usual tip opening on a P-T tenor piece is .085. I haven't used a P-T on any of my horns so I don't know what type of chamber Ralph uses on it. Off the top of my head, I would think that it might be a large chamber. Anyway, that's definitely good news about the intonation. It certainly appears that a Buescher c-melody -- even though it may be more awkward to play -- allows one to use a wider selection of mouthpieces than a Conn. At least, the early model that I have. I have no doubt that a P-T tenor mouthpiece would have terrible intonation on my horn. Congratulations Oldair!!!! :D

A really interesting thing happened to me a couple of days ago. I was waiting to have more time testing this before I posted a note about it. However, I'm feeling very encouraged so I'll go ahead and mention it.....

I've been hearing about the new Francois Louis tenor reeds for the past couple of months. However, it took Roberto's a while to get a shipment in. I finally got my hands on several boxes. Roberto's was already out of #3s. Since I use #2.5 Classique (and Classique is a bit stiffer) I thought that #3 FL reeds would probably be a good match. But, I had to settle for #2.5. I opened one box and prepared 5 out of the 10 reeds. The first reed was absolutely FANTASTIC! It was easy blowing and had much more volume & projection than what I normally experience with a Classique. It was as if my large chamber Morgan mpc suddenly became a medium chamber. It was simply amazing! But, even more amazing to me was the consistancy of tone throughout the range of my c-melody. I'm not sure if this is a problem with Conn c-mels in general or just my early model horn. But, the mid-range can sound a touch stuffy. Whereas, the upper and lower ranges project very well. With this FL reed the mid range on my horn spoke as clear as a bell. I just couldn't believe how superb it sounded! :D

After having such good results with the first FL reed, the next four reeds turned out to be a complete disappointment. They sounded thin and buzzy. The quality and characteristics of their cane were not as good as the first reed. This left me scratching my head. :?

I haven't had a chance to try the remaining 5 reeds in the box. However, in visually examining them the quality of their cane looks much better to me than the first 5 reeds I tried. I hope to get to them today. Given the inconsistancy of the first batch of reeds that I tried, I'm thinking that #3 might work better for me. I talked with Roberto and will exchange the unopened boxes for #3s when the next shipment arrives.

When I finish trying out the other 5 reeds I'll post a note about the results in the Reed section of the Forum. Never the less, I'm still feeling completely and totally blown away by that first reed. If I can find others that play as good as it does this will make a big difference in my c-mel's sound and response.

[OLDAIR]

My C-Mel is not a Buescher, it is a nail-file Conn straight neck. Intonation with the ProTone is still not perfect, (is it ever?) and the tone is even more tenor-like than I was getting before. The lower notes (B and Bb) are much more solid but rather gutsy with an edge. The overall tone is definitely not French Horn-like. I was surprised by the fact that the reed hangs over the end of the table.

What this mouthpiece does allow is for me to again utilize some of the adjustment of the micro-tuner, and I am still looking for the ideal tuning spot. With the Graftonite A5, I had no choice but to run the tuner all the way in. As of now, I'd say they are both workable mouthpieces, but not ideal. Someday I'll get to try a LeBlanc and a Beechler and Morgan. The Quest continues.

[Stencilman]

OLDAIR,
Are you unsing Graftonite A5 tenor mouthpiece? I would think that this would be tough from a tuning perspective since it has a really large chamber. This requires it to be way up on the neck and top notes tend to go sharp. You aren't experiencing this? I would think a B5 (medium chamber) or a C5 (small chamber) would be better suited for the C-melody.

I really like Graftonites because they are cheap ($12 to $20), very consistant and are good candidates for baffle and chamber modification. For example, I could't find a Bb soprano mouthpiece that would really work on my C-soprano. I took a Graftonite and in about an hour was able to thin the side and tip rails, add a baffle and a chamber insert and cut about 1cm off the shank. I'm certainly no mouthpiece expert by any means, but now the horn plays like a dream (played 'til 2am last night - couldn't put it down). It's very sweet, easy blowing, just a little on the bright side, and is easy to play in tune.

I would think that the both the Graftonite tenor and alto mouthpieces would be great for experimenting to get a good C-mel moutpiece.

[OLDAIR]

Stencilman: Yes on the Graftonite A5 tenor. I find the intonation to be pretty good (much better than many I have tried, even one C-Mel M-piece) but I have no adjustment left as the Micro tuner has to be run all the way in. Your mileage may vary. Also low B and Bb are not up to par with the Rico, they tend to break up on me, even with the cork in the bell. (The Pro Tone is much better on the bottom end, but the tone is less like a C-melody and more like a tenor). The rest of the horn sounds balanced, sweet, and powerful with the A5. I am going to cut off about 1/8 to 1/4 inch from the shank and see if that helps any, it should give me a little adjustment anyway. Like you say, they are cheap to experiment with. I figure I'll probably try several mouthpieces before I settle on one. Yes, by the time I'm done I could have probably bought a Morgan and saved myself a lot of money! But I find the search interesting and educational in itself.

I also picked up a Graftonite B5 for my soprano. It plays pretty nicely just stock, though I really have to push it very far onto the sax to get it in tune.

[OLDAIR]

Forgot to mention: I did try a Rico B5 but intonation was the same, B and Bb broke up even more and the tone was a lot more harsh. Never bothered with the C5

[Stencilman]

Thanks for the information - that's very interesting. I haven't experienced the 'low note warble thing' on smaller horns but have on tenor. Oh, what a wonderful mystery in the mouthpiece/neck/horn matching business.

I'm with you: I want to understand as much as I can about the design issues of mouthpieces and vintage horns.

[Roger Aldridge]

Stencilman,

I've found that a c-melody needs a large chamber mouthpiece. Whenever I've tried using a mouthpiece that doesn't have enough chamber volume it normally needs to be pulled out pretty far on the neck cork. Then, as you said, the intonation in the upper register is thrown out of wack. The c-melody is a strange critter. The best results I've gotten from a mouthpiece is one that's the length of an alto mpc but has MORE chamber volume than a comparable tenor piece. This might sound strange. But, at least in my experience, this gives the best intonation throughout the range of the horn.

[Stencilman]

Roger,
That really blows my mind! Based on what I've experienced with vintage altos and sopranos, I expected the opposite. I've heard/read several times that vintage horns need large chamber mouthpieces to play in tune. I guess C-melody's really do fall into that category.

Well, I guess its time to pull out the Martin C-melody and put some pads on it and give it a try. Its been 25 years since I played a C-melody but I bought one a while back for cheap and its just waiting for some TLC.

[OLDAIR]

I looked more carefully at the A5 and the PT last night. The PT is 1/4 inch shorter in length than the A5. The PT seems to need about 36 wrist-turns from all the way in to play in tune. The A5 seems to like all the way in. Chamber size on these two looks to be virtually identical in both size and shape, both are large chambers. The baffles are entirely different. The PT has a classic rollover baffle while the A5 has a sort of stepped baffle with a fairly pronounced rise. After further testing, I think I would need to re-regulate 1 or two key heights to use the PT and get the best intonation, but it is nice to hit the B and Bb and have some confidence they will play without 'motor-boatin'. Finicky critter, this C-Mel, but I like it!

[Roger Aldridge]

Oldair,

I never cease to be amazed at how our various makes and models of c-melodies are so individual with respect to intonation and the mouthpieces that are workable. About a month ago my curiosity got the best of me and I tried a Morgan 6EL tenor piece on my c-melody. I've really come to love the large chamber Excalibur on alto. It's an extraordinary mouthpiece. I just HAD to hear how it sounds on c-melody. Well..... I crashed and burned all over the place! Intonation was terrible with the tenor mpc and as it turned out I didn't even like the sound. Way too tenor-like. When I put my c-mel mouthpiece back on it was like AHHHHHH. Never the less, it was an interesting experiment and it relieved a momentary G.A.S. attack. :lol:

As a follow up..... I tried the remaining Francois Louis tenor reeds that I got from Roberto's. They didn't do anything for me. When I switched back to my broken in Classique reeds I felt entirely comfortable with them. One good thing came out of trying the FL reeds. It led me to be more flexable in where I place the ligature on a reed. I normally place the front edge of the lig just behind the U-shaped cut. This usually gives me the best results. But, I found with some reeds the sound can improve with moving the lig one direction or the other. I've known this for a LONG time. I'm not sure why I haven't done it lately. DUH!!!! (slap head repeatedly)

[cmelodysax]

Guys - historical question I've not seen asked. What were the options on good 'pro' mouthpieces for C-Mel's in the 20's ? I'm assuming that a proportion of the better horns were gigged so maybe needed a slightly more strident tone to get heard against the other horns in those non-amplified days.

I'm also assuming that the close composite/rubber ones that come (if you're lucky) with saxes that come out of loft/garage 'storage' are the 20's equivalent to the modern 'stock' mouthpieces that come with new saxes, which are now usually disgarded for something better.

I seem to remember one posting about Tram endorsing Link, any info on any others ? Maybe, as mouthpiece and reed technology/availability was so limited then, did most players have to make the best of what they had ?
A lot of 'home' users would also probably never go to the lowest or highest notes, so therefore would not be so critical of tuning as we are - after all, how many people could afford regular piano-tuners in the 20's ?

It'd be really interesting to know if pro players in the '20's had to utilise available alto and tenor mouthpieces like we do..............

Regards, Alan.

[OLDAIR]

When last seen, our intrepid C-Melody saxophonist was rustling around in the tenor mouthpiece clearance bin........

I last reported getting good results from the Morgan Protone on my straight neck, nail file Conn C-mel. I had noted that the Protone was about a quarter inch shorter than my Rico Graftonite A5 but with a nearly identical chamber size and shape. It played pretty well and the low B and Bb were much better than the Rico. Thus encouraged, I took the long threatened saw to my Rico and sawed 1/4 inch off the shaft! A little fine sandpaper gave me a relatively smooth finish. I had to readjust the micro-tuner out to close where I had set it with the Morgan, and voila! the B and Bb now pop out like they should. Intonation remains very good throughout, though I am definitely going to have to bring down one or two key heights in the lower stack, just like the Protone required. Obviously I have no idea whether this method will work for anyone else, but I'd of course like to know if it does! Now the difference between the two mouthpieces is pretty much one of tone. I hope to be able to try some Superials on both of them in a 2 1/2, about 1/2 step up in hardness from what I'd been using. Happy Hunting!

[Roger Aldridge]

Oldair,

I talked with Ralph Morgan and his staff about the Pro-Tone mouthpiece. It turns out that they are different from his regular line of mouthpieces. I learned that they are a bit shorter, as you mentioned. In addition, the chamber design is different from a Morgan L or M mouthpiece. If I heard correctly, it should have more of a horseshoe-shaped chamber. Whereas, the Morgan L and M pieces have chambers that are rounder.

[OLDAIR]

Roger,

Thats right, both the Rico and the Protone have Horseshoe shaped chambers with sort of right-angle/shouldered ledges that drop into the shank bore. I have them now so that the intonation is almost identical on both of them, albeit with slight tuning adjustment differences. The tone is a bit different, due to the different shapes of the baffle and other subtleties that my eye can't pick up on. I think they will both sound better with the slightly harder reed. Right now my ear tells me that the Rico is a little sweeter, and the PT giving better projection. I'll post whatever I come up with to the list. I hope this thread hasn't gotten boring, it sure is getting long!

[Roger Aldridge]

Oldair,

This is good stuff! The search to find our individual tonal concept and the set up to help us get it is a big part of playing a c-melody in the 21st Century.

[tophatsax]

I have a straight neck Conn C melody that I plan to get overhauled one of these days. At the suggestion of Bear at Cybersax, I bought a vintage short shank metal Selmer JAZZ mouthpiece for the horn.

Does anyone have any experience with these pieces on C Melodies?

Is it worth keeping around to try on the horn when it's finished (which could be a while)?

Is my HR RPC tenor piece likely to play in tune on this horn?

Thanks

[spiderjames]

Here's an idea;
If the the correct mouthpiece is a combination of correct length and volume then once we have the volume correct, say a medium / large chamber tenor piece, we could simply have the piece machined to the correct length. the problem would be determining the correct volume needed for the particular saxophone. Any known formulas for this? I am definitely no math expert but it seems like If we knew the bore length and taper for a given sax we should be able to determine the needed volume by some sort of a formula. How did the engineers at Conn and buescher etc determine the original mouthpiece design for a given horn?

here's another idea;
Anyone with a particular model C-mel/mouthpiece combo that has good intonation throughout the range of the horn care to cc the volume of their mouthpiece. Then someone with a similar saxophone could find a mouthpiece with similar volume and get it in the ballpark.

[Roger Aldridge]

Spiderjames,

This, in effect, is exactly what Ralph Morgan and his staff does in making a c-melody mouthpiece. They start with an existing Morgan tenor mouthpiece (most often an L model). The shank is shortened to a particular length and the chamber is enlarged to the amount of volume needed for a c-melody. Finally, the fine-tuning of the mouthpiece is done such as adjusting the facing curve (very important!). Several years ago Ralph described to me how they took precise measurements of several vintage c-melody mouthpieces and then determined how they could modify one of their tenor mouthpieces. Ralph would have to explain the math. He could also explain how the specifications for an original mouthpiece were developed for the "missing part of the cone" -- that is, the length and volume of the air column beyond the end of the saxophone's neck -- when the saxophone was being designed at the factory.

Speaking personally, attempting to modify a mouthpiece to work on a c-melody is completely out of my league. I'll leave that to an expert such as Ralph Morgan. I've gotten excellent results working with him -- ie, trying out different facings and amounts of baffle -- to arrive at a mouthpiece that works for my tonal conception of the c-melody. It took some trial & error over a period of time.

Anyway, your line of thought is really good. It's exactly what would be needed to develop a c-melody mouthpiece that's correct for the instrument. At least, this is how I understand it. :D

[MojoBari]

These "missing volume" calculations are well documented in the book by E. Ferron: The Saxophone Is My Voice. Available from J.E.Smith.

I ran the calculations on all my personal instruments and mouthpieces. While they were in the ballpark, I found that I had better intonation if I tuned off of the theoretical volumes.

My Yamaha alto was better if I pushed in .045" to .104" depending on the mouthpiece. Yamaha bari: In .172-335".

Conn 10M: Out .260-.381". Conn Sop: Out .454".

Player physiology and embouchure is a big factor. But you would think that would make all differences in or out. There may be a Conn vs Yamaha difference. Or I just may approach each sax size different. I tend to play sop loose, so I actually push in more than the mouthpiece pitch exersize would dictate. The other saxes I play right on the MP pitch guidelines.

So I concluded that this method was not useful enough to design a finished mouthpiece. Emperical work is needed to make a good one.

Also, I have seen no theoretical method that can determine a length of a mouthpiece. I would think that a length near the length of the missing cone would be best. But many mouthpieces are short and fat to get the needed volume.

[spiderjames]

I assume the morgan pieces are traditional pieces. Are his Cmel pieces made when ordered? If I talked to him about my needs do you he would produce one to order (ie high baffle)?

I was really wanting a high baffle metal mouthpiece. That's what got me thinking of modifying a tenor piece. I was thinking a somewhat scientific method could be used to pick one that would get things in the ball park. if a high baffle tenor piece was found that had the correct volume then once the proper position was found to give the extra length needed for even intonation one could have the shank machined for aesthetic purposes. would you then in effect have a Cmel mouthpiece with correct characteristics. Or is this way too much work and I should just shell out some cash for a few pieces and see which ones will do the job.

the runyon with spoiler looked attractive but I haven't heard enough good things from anyone here about it.

[saxcurious]

Spiderjames,

I like the Runyon C-mel mouthpiece with the spoiler in on my Martin handcraft C-melody because it takes de dark sound and adds just enough edge for my taste (I don't really like a lot of edge). I bought it because it was affordable and I have no complaints, the intonation is much better than the original mouthpiece that came with the sax, which also made it sound really stuffy.
I have not tested the Morgans but tried a Dukoff tenor (didn't like the tone at all, however a professional tenor player friend of mine loved it) and an Otto-Link (nice subdued tone but can be boring) in both cases intonation was more troublesome but manageable and I had to push them in a lot.
If you decide to get a Runyon go to runyonproducts.com and look at the tenor mouthpiece comparative facing chart, then go to Charlie A's (gigdust.com, Charlie A's prices are usually better).

[Roger Aldridge]

Spiderjames,

I can't speak for Ralph. It's possible that he might do something special for you. However, I'm on safe ground in saying that none of his production models are a high baffle type of piece. Yes, they are hand-made after you place an order. A good source for ordering Morgan c-melody mouthpieces is through Dave Hoskins at www.junkdude.com. Dave handles internet and phone orders for Ralph.

Given that you have a 1919 curved neck Conn c-melody, it's my personal feeling that the first thing is to find a mouthpiece that gives you as good of intonation as possible. This will give you a clear indication of whether you have any intonation problems with your horn. Once you get your foot in the door and have a good foundation with the horn then you could branch out and explore different tonal possibilities. Anyway, that's my 2 cents for what it's worth. I hope that your c-melody doesn't have the funky intonation problems that my horn did!

One other thing to consider is that once you find a mouthpiece that works for you it's possible to explore some different tonal qualities by simply using different styles and cuts of reeds. For example, you might be able to get something along the lines of a high baffle sound by using Alexander Superial (yellow box) reeds. They are on the brighter side and have a touch of a buzz. Whereas, if you want to go darker then an Alexander Classique (red box) will do the trick.

Good luck, Roger

[spiderjames]

Ordered a runyon from Charlie A's, thanks for the tip Saxcurious, That'll get me started as none of my alto or tenor pieces are cutting it. I went with a 7 facing. There was no tip opening dimension listed but the alto and tenor pieces run equal to brilharts so I assume the 7 runyon will be in between the two. Depending on the results I get with the runyon I'll maybe try a morgan in a week or two. What was the turnaround time for your morgans?

When I find one that works I think I'll cc the mouthpiece and try my theory out on some high baffle metal tenor pieces

[Roger Aldridge]

Spiderjames,

I hope the Runyone works well for you. Please let us know. I'm very interested in hearing about your horn's intonation.

Arrival time for a Morgan varies quite a bit. We can be talking weeks or a couple of months. Sometimes Ralph runs into supply problems in getting his hard rubber blanks from Europe. Dave posts an estimated turn-around time each month on the Morgan News section of his junkdude web site. It can be frustrating at times to wait so long to get a Morgan mouthpiece. But, when it arrives I never fail to be completely blown away by how good it is.

It's really cool to see your spirit of adventure and experimentation with your c-melody. Welcome to the club! :lol:

[spiderjames]

Thanks for your help and suggestions Roger and everyone else that has responded. One of the reasons I started playing C melodies before was to play something a bit different. The best characteristics of alto and tenor rolled into one horn. I still think that there is a signature sound to be had here. We just need to dig a little deeper to get the proper tools to get it out.

[cmelodysax]

Spider - I'll be interested in your comments on the Runyon C-Mel mpc - I acquired one with a C-Mel, but found it to be surprisingly 'muffled' by comparison to the tenor piece.

Does seem to reinforce my feeling (unless you're looking for the original plummy sound) that the C-Mel really needs a 'larger than life' mouthpiece to make it a viable 21st Century horn which can hold it's own, especially when played in boisterous company.

Regards, Alan.

[spiderjames]

Got my runyon C-mel mouthpiece today and the initial run through did not look promising. I started by tuning to F. the intonation below F down to low Bb is not too bad except motorboating starts to occur on the bell tones. This happens also with an alto mouthpiece but not with my tenor. again with the runyon on the upper stack some real problems show up. there is a huge spread between octaves on G-C. the upper octave is sharp and the lower is flat. if I tune up the higher octave the the lower is way flat and if I tune to the lower octave the upper is way sharp. and of course either way the lower notes are then thrown off.

With my alto piece (levelair 6*) the upper notes are somewhat in tune (workable) but the lower notes are progressively sharp and motorboating occurs C and below.

With the tenor piece (also a levelair 7*) the low notes are in tune with no motorboating and the only real problems being E and D are sharp (correctable) and B and C are flat.The palm keys & altissimo however do not speak well.

looking at the design of the runyon has me wondering about a few things. The chamber seems very small. then with the spoiler sticking in there the whole thing seems a bit constricted. I'm not sure why you would design a small chamber piece for vintage horns that are more or less tenors. Could this account for the wild intonation I am experiencing?

My old C-melodies were a buescher true tone and a martin stencil. They shared a large chamber goldbeck alto piece and although the sound was not a modern sound there were no real tuning issues.

Would opening up the chamber on the runyon mouthpiece possibly help? Anyone tried having this done?

Are Conn C mels inferior intonation wise to martins or bueschers? I don't find that to be true of Conn altos or tenors even from 1919.

[cmelodysax]

Spider - glad it wasn't just me being a bit negative with the Runyon C-Mel mouthpiece. By comparison with tenor and alto Runyons, I found the C-Mel version very lack-lustre and unimpressive.

Despite frequently being told that 'a C-Mel needs a C-melody mouthpiece' I'll happily now stick to my tried & tested tenor (and occasional alto) mpcs on Martin & Buescher C-Mels. The only 'real' C-Mel mpc I haven't yet tried is Rogers beloved Morgan, and don't really want to shell out that much 'on spec' as I've never used their tenor or alto mpcs either.

Although I've now sold most of my Conn C-Mels, I don't think Conn C-Mels have inferior intonation to either Martins or Bueschers - in fact possibly the opposite, with Conns (especially the straight-necks) having generally slightly better overall intonation at the expense of a lighter, compact, more focussed, tone. I just prefer the bigger Buescher/Martin sound, but certainly can't get close to it with the Runyon C-Mel mpc ! Muffled and insipid are about the best adjectives I can apply, apart from the intonation issues.

Oh well......... Regards, Alan.

[spiderjames]

That spread between octaves has me kinda freaked out. I found out today that if I position mouthpiece just right I can get most of the horn in tune except lower octave A,B & C. They are still way flat. It is there with the tenor mouthpiece also but close enough to adjust.

I may send it out and have some work done on it. open it up some. See if that helps.

I pulled my tenor sax out and it was like a cake walk compared to trying to play in tune on the C melody.

I will probably do what I did with my tenor and buy a few mouthpieces to try, pick the best of the bunch and sell off the others

[LordXiminez]

I've had my 1922 straight-neck Conn c-melody for about a year now, and I still can't get it to play in tune. I had been using the original mouthpiece, but it sounded so awful that I borrowed my friend's alto mouthpiece to use instead (a Selmer C*). The C* sounded much less stuffy, and the middle part of the horn sounded fine, but high D to high F refused to speak at all, the middle D was severely sharp, and the low notes were motorboating a bit. (Sometimes they sounded fine, but most of the time they motorboated, and putting things in the bell did nothing to solve that.) I tried my tenor mouthpiece on it (Selmer S90), and it was completely unplayable.

Is there any mouthpiece under $100 that would work without me having to drastically adjust it? The guy who sold me the c-mel was advising that I buy a Runyon, but I've been reading less-than-nice things about them here....

[spiderjames]

I'm thinking if I can score an old goldbeck like I had before and have it refaced with a more open tip opening it might do the trick. It was an extremely large chamber for an alto piece. the side walls were scooped way out. I understand they used to make metal C-melody pieces too although I've never seen one. According to Bear @ cybersax Selmer jazz tenor pieces work on straight neck C-mels but I doubt you'll find one under $100.00. My runyon was $93.00 with shipping and if I have it worked on it will probably be at least 2x's that and still may not work. that morgan's looking cheaper all the time.

All I want is to find one that lets low Bb play in tune and nothin else be too flat. Everything else is fixable.

[cmelodysax]

Spider - a 'short-shank' selmer tenor mpc would be needed for the microtuner, those seem to go for a tad more than $100.

Another useful short tenor mpc I found was the Selmer/Brilhart 'Ebolin', played nicely in tune on a Conn C-Mel, and with a few microtuner threads to spare - without killing the wallet, and they are still around as new/old stock.

Not the brightest mpc in the world, but a baffle could be added, great intonation though. I did a very quick sound sample (for ebay) direct into the PC mic, Rico Royal 2.5 reed , Conn s/neck C-Mel #68667 - it's at -

http://www.dorsetdriftwood.btinternet.co.uk/saxophones/stthomas.wav

Regards, Alan.

[paulwl]

Yeeah! :)

The Brilhart alto mpcs work on Conns too...at least the pre Selmer ones do. Might have to lay back off the end of the tuner and show some cork, though. Dan Levinson uses a Tonalin alto mpc to great effect on a straight neck Conn.

[Roger Aldridge]

Spiderjames,

The intonation problems you're having on your c-melody appear to be similar to what I had on my 1919 Conn. You didn't mention middle C#. How's it? It was absolutely terrible on my horn. I had to go to extraordinary lengths to have the intonation of the middle C# down to A range of my c-melody fixed. If I ever sell this c-melody I'll never get back the amount of money that I've spent on it! :lol:

If it would be helpful to you, you're welcome to borrow the original Conn c-melody mouthpiece that came with my horn. Ralph Morgan refaced the mouthpiece and opened it to .090 a few years ago. You could use it as a benchmark to test the intonation of your c-melody. If you still have intonation problems with this original c-melody mouthpiece then it will be a clear sign that your horn is at fault. If that turns out to be true then you'll have a problem with ANY mouthpiece you try on your c-mel. This test could help you avoid chasing your tail in trying out a lot of mouthpieces, spending a lot of money, and getting terribly frustrated. Believe me, I've been there!

I'm not using the Conn mouthpiece so it's not a problem for me to loan it to you. If you want to do this, please contact me offline at nancyandrog@earthlink.net .

There's not too many of us that play a curved neck Conn c-melody. It's become my feeling that they may be more prone to intonation problems than the later straight neck models. Therefore, we need to keep in mind that mouthpieces that work okay on straight neck Conns or other makes (ie, Buescher, Martin, etc) may or may not work as well on our 1919 horn.

Scott Robinson plays a 1918 Conn c-melody that's similar to our horns. Several years ago I traded a number of letters and emails with Scott. He uses an old Selmer metal alto mouthpiece that was modified by Joe Viola when Scott was a student at Berklee in the 80's. The important thing to know is that even with this Joe Viola-tweeked mouthpiece Scott has serious intonation problems with his horn. You wouldn't know it by listening to his recordings. But, Scott told me about the efforts he goes through to play this horn. Truly, the way in which he sounds so good on the c-melody is a mark of his superior musicianship.

Best Wishes, Roger

[Roger Aldridge]

PS,

Marsh Music had some vintage Goldbeck metal c-melody mouthpieces. I haven't checked lately so I don't know if they are still available or not. Personally, I'm not sure what getting a Goldbeck will do for you even if you open it up. That is, the style of baffle and chamber design will still give you a vintage type of sound. I mentioned in my previous message that Ralph Morgan worked on my original Conn c-melody mouthpiece. He opened it to .090 and must have adjusted the facing curve. It sounds MUCH better than it did before. But, it still has the sound and feel of a vintage mouthpiece. Believe me, there's no comparison between it and one of Ralph's c-melody mouthpieces.

[Stacey]

Spiderjames,

This thread is so long that I don't recall what I've said and what I haven't (or if I've posted at all). If this repeats some info from one of my earlier posts from ages ago, I apologize...

I'm another one of those 1919 curved-neck Conn players, like you and Roger. Also, I play the Morgan #6 (.090) C-melody mouthpiece.

Unfortunately, I can't give you any comparison info in my case, because the Morgan is the one and only mouthpiece I've played on my C-melody. And my C-melody is the only one I've ever played, too! Based on Roger's experience, I went ahead and ordered the Morgan about the same time I got the horn. I had the mpc long before the horn itself ever got into playable condition.

My experience is that with my Morgan, I really don't have much trouble achieving decent intonation. I liked the Morgan so much that I wound up switching to a Morgan classical piece on both alto and tenor, and I even picked up a Morgan Excalibur piece for tenor, too (it was used, and too good a deal to pass up).

My C-mel is not nearly as smooth and easy to play as my alto or tenor, but I think that is mainly a result of imprecise adjustment by my "tech" and insufficient practice time by me. I do like the tone quality and the intonation my Conn/Morgan combo gives me, though.

I've never been someone who tried tons of mouthpieces, so I can't provide much comparative info for alto, tenor, or soprano, either. Other than Selmer mpcs and Morgans, the only mpc I've ever played for any length of time was a Dukoff D8 on alto, which very quickly got put back in the drawer.

Good luck to you. Email me at stacey_bowling@yahoo.com if you'd like.

[spiderjames]

the main problem seems to be the spread between octaves on A,B & C. most of the other notes are not too bad. i posted a note in the repair section to see if anyone knows how to improve that. If they were flat it would be a bit easier.

Roger, the middle C# is OK, the high one is a bit sharp but workable. Thanks for the offer on the use of the mouthpiece. I might take you up on it. Any ideas what your tech did to improve C# thru A on your horn?

[Roger Aldridge]

Spikerjames,

It was a tricky, trial & error process of putting shims (sp?) in various tone holes. As I recall, it took 4 attempts in order to get the intonation as good as it could get. As it stands, I still need to use alternate fingerings on middle C# and C natural. However, I've gotten used to it. It sounds like the intonation on your c-mel may be a bit better than what I started with.

You're certainly welcome to try the mouthpiece. Be advised that I'll be on vacation next week.

Roger

[jrbrook76]

For those of you who don't know, Bill Street makes incredible mouthpieces. Primarily a flutist through my college years, I hadn't touched a saxophone in 8 years when I was hired to play "A Chorus Line" , yet the student yamaha sax I borrowed for the gig had one of Bill's handmade custom mouthpieces on it and I was astonished at how great I sounded. It made a pro out of me for that show, which requires some pretty fast exchanges between sax and flute or sax and piccolo. As a theatrical woodwind specialist embarking on a career in New York City's theatre scene, I plan to have one of Bill's mouthpieces on any horn I play.

Jason Brook - NYC

[MojoBari]

How did you land a gig like that without touching a sax for 8 years?

[bobsax]

Lastly, if you haven't already checked out the c melody forum, here's the link:


http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=cmelody

C melody players talking nothing but c melody issues. Lots of info. and threads about mouthpieces...Hope this helps as a starting point....helen

This link seems dead. Were all the threads just moved to this subcategory?

[bruce bailey]

As I recall it shut down due to a LOT of spam.